Aesthetic sustainability is about rethinking sustainability. About moving away from decomposition and recreation and towards recycling and minimal consumption. Away from viewing products as having a life cycle (birth and death) and towards anti-consumption (or at least minimal consumption) and products that last a lifetime.
The ultimate sustainability must be buying a few, good things that last. But that requires durability, quality, and aesthetics! Which look do you never get tired of? Which shirt would you want to wear again and again, year after year (if it didn’t wear out)?
The definition of an aesthetically sustainable design object (whether this being a dress, a table, a bag, or a bowl) is, to me, an object that has a lasting expression… an object that lasts aesthetically. And a lasting expression makes me think of:
- something constant
- something minimalistic
- an object made of lasting, natural materials (that age with beauty)
- something timeless
Aesthetics concerns beauty and sensuous delight. But what is considered beautiful and delightful? Beauty is in many ways connected to taste – and therefore connected to the ideals of our time, our culture. Connected to trends.
If something is aesthetically sustainable, it contains a lasting harmonic, beauty that is not affected by trends; it applies to general, human, aesthetic rules. If something is aesthetically sustainable, it pleases our senses as well as our fundamental human need to structure what we experience. It has a constant expression; a lasting look.
By general, human, aesthetic rules I mean for example symmetry, proportional harmony, the golden ratio, colour density (i.e. that some colours take up more space than others, and therefore you need to use less of them in order to create a harmonic expression).
A minimalistic or non-complex expression contains a certain aesthetic sustainability as well. The human eye can quickly decode the structure of the object; pay off is quick and simple. And simplicity provides durability. Simple, symmetrical design is aesthetically flexible; in my living room I have four chairs by Danish designer Kai Kristiansen - and they look great in my home’s mixture of “less is more”, piles of books, and colourful, abstract paintings. But they would fit equally as well into an entirely different living room – with pillows, curtains, plants, and dark wallpaper.
Aesthetic sustainability also concerns materials. Materials that age with beauty. Not in a shabby chic kind of way – but in the sense that the object changes with time, when used or weathered (like copper roofs that get their beautiful light green colour with time). Object made from aesthetically sustainable materials provide a beautiful tactile experience that lasts. That makes a lasting impression. And has a grounding effect.
But is aesthetic sustainability only a matter of creating minimalistic, “clean” objects that you never get tired of looking at? Or can an aesthetically sustainable object also be an object that is so complex that you never feel like you are done with it?
Loading...
7 comments
ah@kea.dk says:
Jan 29, 2012
Very nice and interesting
sharpe says:
Jan 29, 2012
Nice chairs, I have four just like it.
The sublime and the complex expression | David Report says:
Feb 4, 2012
[...] and the complex expression by Kristine Harper on Feb 4, 2012 • 16:49 No Comments My post on aesthetic sustainability finished with the following question: Is aesthetic sustainability only a matter of creating [...]
Randy Weersing says:
Feb 22, 2012
I think aesthetic sustainability coupled with material sustainability is a powerful union. Your last question is intriguing and could probably spark a lengthy debate. Personally, I think complexity can be aesthetically sustainable, but it is much more difficult to attain.
Buck O'Kelly says:
Feb 26, 2012
I agree with Randy on the sustainable appeal of complex objects. All of the objects above are very complex to my eye, and each could provide countless little moments of delightful wonder at some newborn facet of my perception as it is being delivered by a new gaze at them. I really have no idea what minimalism is actually supposed to be. I’ve always thought it was kind of silly for anyone to try to minimize my annoying ability to see a vast and complex universe within any visual field I choose to do that to. In other words, minimalism is nonexistent per se outside the mind of the maker and anyone else who chooses to view the work according to the word chosen by the maker or their agent to describe it. For me, my fertile imagination cannot be tamed by such blather. Everything is stunningly complex. It’s my willingness to remember this about any given object that determines the sustainability of its presence in my mind field.
Randy Weersing says:
Feb 26, 2012
Buck, you make a strong argument for the objective reality camp, but varying degrees of consensus do exist among artists and admirers and detractors of an object. I don’t know how to define minimalism any more than I know how to define art, but I know it when I see it…and granted, it’s a personal definition…but that degree of consensus agrees. It’s all just semantics really. As you say, one can find complexity in the seemingly simple, but there is a simplicity in the complex. I’ve seen what I consider greatness in the simplest compositions of line and color, as in the most complex creations. This logic becomes very circular. For me, logic doesn’t apply so well to art. Suffice to say that I like your take on the question. I still think complexity of concept, line, form, and color can be aesthetically sustainable, but it’s a generally more difficult trick.
Aesthetic strategy | David Report says:
Mar 22, 2012
[...] be: Do you want your design to contain a volatile expression – or are you concerned with aesthetic sustainability, durability? I will be writing more on the progress of these thoughts in a later post; about [...]